pmgamer18
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
One of the guys at my forum posted this but he had no link this is long hear is part 1.
(1) Politics of the Prostate
Peter Myers, December 18, 2011
Submitted to the newsletter of Rare Fruit Australia (RFA), Hinkler
Branch (Bundaberg).
Medical experts divided over Prostate tests
The Prostate is the equivalent in men of the Uterus in women. Its main
function is to produce fluid for semen, which transports sperm. No
Prostate, No Sex.
A large proportion of older men are experiencing Prostate problems
(difficult urinating, frequent urinating), and being pressured to take
regular PSA tests. They often get a diagnosis of Benign Prostatic
Hyperplasia (BPH).
But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, titled "Experts divided
over prostate cancer testing", said,
"Each year in Australia more than 800,000 men undergo screening for
prostate cancer. But some doctors say the test is pointless, and may
even be harmful.
"THE debate is heated. Men who have had their life saved by a prostate
specific antigen test that has led to a cancer being discovered are
understandably passionate.
"Their ire was raised this week by the launch of a book critical of the
push for universal PSA testing, co-written by Simon Chapman, a professor
of public health at the University of Sydney.
"Let Sleeping Dogs Lie argues the PSA test cannot distinguish deadly
cancers from those which will not cause a problem. Often men treated for
those cancers - through surgery or radiation - can become impotent or
incontinent."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/exper...119-180z2.html
A similar article was published in The Australian, titled "Prostate
tests 'fail to reduce death rate'"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226032272870
The book says that "de facto screening of populations is well under
way, being driven by well-meaning advice ... Medical science is today
unable to predict with any precision which early discovered prostate
cancers will turn out to be those that kill, and particularly which will
kill men in middle age. The frontline diagnostic tool in efforts to
screen for prostate cancer - the PSA test - is a tool which has very
poor ability to find problematic cancers. It finds many benign cancers
which could have been left alone."
Common side effects of partial or total removal of the Prostate include
Impotence (no sex) and Incontinence (having to wear nappies).
Yet the scientist who invented the PSA test has since come out against
it, saying that it's inaccurate and a waste of public money.
Scientist who invented the PSA test now says it's inaccurate and dangerous
The Great Prostate Mistake
By RICHARD J. ABLIN
New York Times, March 9, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor - P.S.A. prostate screening is inaccurate and a waste of money. - NYTimes.com
EACH year some 30 million American men undergo testing for
prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by
the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most
commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer.
The test's popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health
disaster. It's an issue I am painfully familiar with - I discovered
P.S.A. in 1970. ...
Americans spend an enormous amount testing for prostate cancer. The
annual bill for P.S.A. screening is at least $3 billion ...
Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers:
American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis
of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That's
because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words,
men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with
prostate cancer than to die of it.
Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I've
been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can't
detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can't distinguish between
the two types of prostate cancer - the one that will kill you and the
one that won't.
Instead, the test simply reveals how much of the prostate antigen a man
has in his blood. Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and
benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man's P.S.A. levels,
but none of these factors signals cancer. Men with low readings might
still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be
completely healthy.
In approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Administration relied
heavily on a study that showed testing could detect 3.8 percent of
prostate cancers, which was a better rate than the standard method, a
digital rectal exam.
Still, 3.8 percent is a small number. Nevertheless, especially in the
early days of screening, men with a reading over four nanograms per
milliliter were sent for painful prostate biopsies. If the biopsy showed
any signs of cancer, the patient was almost always pushed into surgery,
intensive radiation or other damaging treatments.
The medical community is slowly turning against P.S.A. screening. Last
year, The New England Journal of Medicine published results from the two
largest studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the
United States. The results from the American study show that over a
period of 7 to 10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men
55 and over. ...
So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the
tests and advocacy groups push "prostate cancer awareness" by
encouraging men to get screened. Shamefully, the American Urological
Association still recommends screening, while the National Cancer
Institute is vague on the issue, stating that the evidence is unclear. ...
I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a
profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must
confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening.
Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from
unnecessary, debilitating treatments.
Part 2 to follow.
(1) Politics of the Prostate
Peter Myers, December 18, 2011
Submitted to the newsletter of Rare Fruit Australia (RFA), Hinkler
Branch (Bundaberg).
Medical experts divided over Prostate tests
The Prostate is the equivalent in men of the Uterus in women. Its main
function is to produce fluid for semen, which transports sperm. No
Prostate, No Sex.
A large proportion of older men are experiencing Prostate problems
(difficult urinating, frequent urinating), and being pressured to take
regular PSA tests. They often get a diagnosis of Benign Prostatic
Hyperplasia (BPH).
But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, titled "Experts divided
over prostate cancer testing", said,
"Each year in Australia more than 800,000 men undergo screening for
prostate cancer. But some doctors say the test is pointless, and may
even be harmful.
"THE debate is heated. Men who have had their life saved by a prostate
specific antigen test that has led to a cancer being discovered are
understandably passionate.
"Their ire was raised this week by the launch of a book critical of the
push for universal PSA testing, co-written by Simon Chapman, a professor
of public health at the University of Sydney.
"Let Sleeping Dogs Lie argues the PSA test cannot distinguish deadly
cancers from those which will not cause a problem. Often men treated for
those cancers - through surgery or radiation - can become impotent or
incontinent."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/exper...119-180z2.html
A similar article was published in The Australian, titled "Prostate
tests 'fail to reduce death rate'"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226032272870
The book says that "de facto screening of populations is well under
way, being driven by well-meaning advice ... Medical science is today
unable to predict with any precision which early discovered prostate
cancers will turn out to be those that kill, and particularly which will
kill men in middle age. The frontline diagnostic tool in efforts to
screen for prostate cancer - the PSA test - is a tool which has very
poor ability to find problematic cancers. It finds many benign cancers
which could have been left alone."
Common side effects of partial or total removal of the Prostate include
Impotence (no sex) and Incontinence (having to wear nappies).
Yet the scientist who invented the PSA test has since come out against
it, saying that it's inaccurate and a waste of public money.
Scientist who invented the PSA test now says it's inaccurate and dangerous
The Great Prostate Mistake
By RICHARD J. ABLIN
New York Times, March 9, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor - P.S.A. prostate screening is inaccurate and a waste of money. - NYTimes.com
EACH year some 30 million American men undergo testing for
prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by
the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most
commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer.
The test's popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health
disaster. It's an issue I am painfully familiar with - I discovered
P.S.A. in 1970. ...
Americans spend an enormous amount testing for prostate cancer. The
annual bill for P.S.A. screening is at least $3 billion ...
Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers:
American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis
of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That's
because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words,
men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with
prostate cancer than to die of it.
Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I've
been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can't
detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can't distinguish between
the two types of prostate cancer - the one that will kill you and the
one that won't.
Instead, the test simply reveals how much of the prostate antigen a man
has in his blood. Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and
benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man's P.S.A. levels,
but none of these factors signals cancer. Men with low readings might
still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be
completely healthy.
In approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Administration relied
heavily on a study that showed testing could detect 3.8 percent of
prostate cancers, which was a better rate than the standard method, a
digital rectal exam.
Still, 3.8 percent is a small number. Nevertheless, especially in the
early days of screening, men with a reading over four nanograms per
milliliter were sent for painful prostate biopsies. If the biopsy showed
any signs of cancer, the patient was almost always pushed into surgery,
intensive radiation or other damaging treatments.
The medical community is slowly turning against P.S.A. screening. Last
year, The New England Journal of Medicine published results from the two
largest studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the
United States. The results from the American study show that over a
period of 7 to 10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men
55 and over. ...
So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the
tests and advocacy groups push "prostate cancer awareness" by
encouraging men to get screened. Shamefully, the American Urological
Association still recommends screening, while the National Cancer
Institute is vague on the issue, stating that the evidence is unclear. ...
I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a
profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must
confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening.
Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from
unnecessary, debilitating treatments.
Part 2 to follow.
